Get human cheese in NYC!

[while1]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

LOL

[Towelie]

Now if I could have a hand in the cheese making process...

[deadly7]

Now if I could have a hand in the cheese making process...

Wouldn't happen. You want the girls to lactate, not run screaming.

[Ender]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

Why?

Why to what? Why am I all for personal freedoms, or why do I think it is disgusting?

See Blaze, this is why you shouldn't be so laconic.

[iago]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

Why?

Why to what? Why am I all for personal freedoms, or why do I think it is disgusting?

See Blaze, this is why you shouldn't be so laconic.

Why do you think it is disgusting (assuming you think animal milk is ok)?

[Ender]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

Why?

Why to what? Why am I all for personal freedoms, or why do I think it is disgusting?

See Blaze, this is why you shouldn't be so laconic.

Why do you think it is disgusting (assuming you think animal milk is ok)?

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

[iago]

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

You're defining "natural" in an odd way -- as tradition. "Natural" should mean the way nature intended, and there's no way nature intended for humans  to chase down pregnant cows and squeeze out the milk they're producing for their babies (there was a really funny line in Burmese Days about this -- something like "if you want some milk, we can chase down a cow for you".

At least human milk is intended to be drank by humans, albeit at a certain age.

<edit> that being said, there's a certain relationship between a mother and her nursing children that is very important psychologically. So drinking the milk of somebody who isn't your mother is, I'll agree, kinda gross. But we take that relationship away from animals unfairly and drink THEIR milk, so...

[Ender]

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

You're defining "natural" in an odd way -- as tradition. "Natural" should mean the way nature intended, and there's no way nature intended for humans  to chase down pregnant cows and squeeze out the milk they're producing for their babies (there was a really funny line in Burmese Days about this -- something like "if you want some milk, we can chase down a cow for you".

At least human milk is intended to be drank by humans, albeit at a certain age.

<edit> that being said, there's a certain relationship between a mother and her nursing children that is very important psychologically. So drinking the milk of somebody who isn't your mother is, I'll agree, kinda gross. But we take that relationship away from animals unfairly and drink THEIR milk, so...

Nature has no mind of its own. It can't intend anything. Intention implies sentience, and nature is not sentient.

I think the closest thing to nature's intentions would be history. We've been milking cows for thousands of years. Humans started out domesticating animals because it helped the human race survive. What's so unnatural about this chef's idea of using his wife's milk is that it is not arising out of a need for survival, it is merely a ploy for getting attention.

[Sidoh]

I don't see anything wrong with finding human cheese gross.  It's not really a double-standard, as long as you don't object to it for moral reasons.  Then it becomes more of a relevant question.

[iago]

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

You're defining "natural" in an odd way -- as tradition. "Natural" should mean the way nature intended, and there's no way nature intended for humans  to chase down pregnant cows and squeeze out the milk they're producing for their babies (there was a really funny line in Burmese Days about this -- something like "if you want some milk, we can chase down a cow for you".

At least human milk is intended to be drank by humans, albeit at a certain age.

<edit> that being saidhouses, there's a certain relationship between a mother and her nursing children that is very important psychologically. So drinking the milk of somebody who isn't your mother is, I'll agree, kinda gross. But we take that relationship away from animals unfairly and drink THEIR milk, so...

Nature has no mind of its own. It can't intend anything. Intention implies sentience, and nature is not sentient.

I think the closest thing to nature's intentions would be history. We've been milking cows for thousands of years. Humans started out domesticating animals because it helped the human race survive. What's so unnatural about this chef's idea of using his wife's milk is that it is not arising out of a need for survival, it is merely a ploy for getting attention.

By your definition of "natural", computers and cars and stuff will be considered natural in a couple generations. I think that makes it an invalid definition.

In terms of nature having a mind of its own... whether you believe in evolution or creationism, everything has a purpose, which I was referring as "intention" -- again, it's simple semantics. In evolution, things have a purpose because they fill a certain niche and, therefore, exist for that reason. Creationism, things were created specifically for said reason.

[Sidoh]

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

You're defining "natural" in an odd way -- as tradition. "Natural" should mean the way nature intended, and there's no way nature intended for humans  to chase down pregnant cows and squeeze out the milk they're producing for their babies (there was a really funny line in Burmese Days about this -- something like "if you want some milk, we can chase down a cow for you".

At least human milk is intended to be drank by humans, albeit at a certain age.

<edit> that being saidhouses, there's a certain relationship between a mother and her nursing children that is very important psychologically. So drinking the milk of somebody who isn't your mother is, I'll agree, kinda gross. But we take that relationship away from animals unfairly and drink THEIR milk, so...

Nature has no mind of its own. It can't intend anything. Intention implies sentience, and nature is not sentient.

I think the closest thing to nature's intentions would be history. We've been milking cows for thousands of years. Humans started out domesticating animals because it helped the human race survive. What's so unnatural about this chef's idea of using his wife's milk is that it is not arising out of a need for survival, it is merely a ploy for getting attention.

By your definition of "natural", computers and cars and stuff will be considered natural in a couple generations. I think that makes it an invalid definition.

In terms of nature having a mind of its own... whether you believe in evolution or creationism, everything has a purpose, which I was referring as "intention" -- again, it's simple semantics. In evolution, things have a purpose because they fill a certain niche and, therefore, exist for that reason. Creationism, things were created specifically for said reason.

I think "natural" is a meaningless, slippery, vague term.  I'm fine with thinking technology is natural.  In fact, I do think it's natural.   I don't think Ender's definition is close to invalid.

[iago]

I think "natural" is a meaningless, slippery, vague term.  I'm fine with thinking technology is natural.  In fact, I do think it's natural.   I don't think Ender's definition is close to invalid.

Then you have a funny definition of natural. :)

I'd define "natural" as "something created by nature" -- I don't think human-created inventions can fit into that unless you stretch it. Maybe you can call human inventions second-order natural? :)

[Sidoh]

I think "natural" is a meaningless, slippery, vague term.  I'm fine with thinking technology is natural.  In fact, I do think it's natural.   I don't think Ender's definition is close to invalid.

Then you have a funny definition of natural. :)

I'd define "natural" as "something created by nature" -- I don't think human-created inventions can fit into that unless you stretch it. Maybe you can call human inventions second-order natural? :)

Humans are a part of nature by my definition.

[Ender]

I think "natural" is a meaningless, slippery, vague term.  I'm fine with thinking technology is natural.  In fact, I do think it's natural.   I don't think Ender's definition is close to invalid.

Then you have a funny definition of natural. :)

I'd define "natural" as "something created by nature" -- I don't think human-created inventions can fit into that unless you stretch it. Maybe you can call human inventions second-order natural? :)

Humans are a part of nature by my definition.

Ah, Sidoh makes a very good point. Our natural environment is largely created by organisms. For instance, plants producing oxygen, bacteria enabling life, etc. All these things we call "natural". But what is so different about human invention (as opposed to say, plant invention) that we rule it out as natural?

[iago]

Well, if you argue that human-created inventions are "natural", then I have to rule your definition of "natural" wrong/perverted and dismiss any arguments predicated on that concept. :)